It's generated code. We are use to seeing "stupid names" coming from
generated code :-).
Seriously, when trying to figure out what the code generators are doing,
minimizing the variences in generated names seems like the best choice. A
"stupid" artificial name, yet no question on the intent or lineage of the
name.
<ras>
*******************************************
Richard A. Sitze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Jordahl
<tomj@macromedia To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
.com> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
02/04/2002 09:20 Subject: RE: Service interface
AM
Please respond
to axis-dev
Here is a suggestion: Check for "Service" at the end of the name, and don't
append it if it's already there. This prevents the stupid name. Still
avoids name clashes.
--
Tom Jordahl
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Service interface
JAX-RPC 0.6 discussed generating a service interface and a service
implementation. The interface was optional. In the interests of
minimizing generated files, AXIS opted to NOT generate the interface.
In JAX-RPC 0.7 the service interface is no longer optional. If the service
is named X, the service interface is named X. That's the name we'd been
using for the implementation. I would like to rename the implementation to
XServiceImpl. I will not simply rename it XImpl because I've occasionally
seen a binding and a service share the same name and we already generate an
implementation template called <bindingName>Impl. Of course, most often
the service name is something like XService, so we'd be generating the
rather strangely named class XServiceServiceImpl. I'd be happy to hear
better suggestions if folks have them.
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
